Post New

DEmocrats should refer to it as nothing other than the "Republcan Health Care system" every minute of every day from now till 2029.

The Republican Health Care Sytem.


The Vance Health Care System.



And, Republicans who support the Big Bill----should proudly refer to it as that also from now on.



If Democrats don't mess this up, this is a smaller version of Iraq---only it's closer to home and more personal and unliek war - this will be felt by supporters and opposers both.

The Republican Health Care Sytem.

Absolutely.

Let’s watch and see how the Democrats screw up their message this time.

The Republican Health Care Sytem.

SpankeeCare.

Get out your Time magazine with Spankee's picture on the cover.

And here's the GOP counter, courtesy of Scott Jennings (as he bodies Paul Begala on cnn today)

“We’re not cutting Medicaid for the people who voted for us. We’re cutting Medicaid for the people who vote for Democrats, the illegal aliens. That’s who we’re cutting Medicaid for. Look, we’re cutting — the only thing we’re cutting here is taxes...Why are you fighting so hard to protect welfare benefits for — for illegal aliens? For illegal aliens! Why do you — why would Democrats fight so hard to keep illegal aliens on welfare?

Bwahahahahaha.

Let the libs whine about illegals being kicked off of Medicaid.

And hat tip to my home state of Missouri's own Sen. Eric Schmitt:

https://x.com/SenEricSchmitt/status/19401165283655...

Yesterday, there were a lot of rumors floating around about the ban on Medicaid for illegal aliens being stripped from the bill.

Thankfully, that's not true. It's very much in the bill we just passed.

You can look it up below. Page 602. Section 77109.

Let's do that, shall we?

https://punchbowl.news/file_3921/

(Link to the actual bill)

And on page 602 it says:

SEC. 71109. ALIEN MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY.
(a) MEDICAID.—Section 1903(v) of the Social Secu
rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(v)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and (4)’’and
inserting ‘‘, (4), and (5)’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
‘‘(5) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs of
this subsection, beginning on October 1, 2026, except as
provided in paragraphs (2) and (4), in no event shall pay
ment be made to a State under this section for medical
assistance furnished to an individual unless such indi
vidual is—
‘‘(A) a resident of 1 of the 50 States, the Dis
trict of Columbia, or a territory of the United
25
States; and (B) either—
‘‘(i) a citizen or national of the United
States;
‘‘(ii) an alien lawfully admitted for perma
nent residence as an immigrant as defined by
sections 101(a)(15) and 101(a)(20) of the Im
migration and Nationality Act, excluding,
among others, alien visitors, tourists, diplomats,
and students who enter the United States tem
porarily with no intention of abandoning their
residence in a foreign country;
‘‘(iii) an alien who has been granted the
status of Cuban and Haitian entrant, as de
fined in section 501(e) of the Refugee Edu
cation Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96–
422); or
‘‘(iv) an individual who lawfully resides in
the United States in accordance with a Com
pact of Free Association referred to in section
402(b)(2)(G) of the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.’’.

Oof. This is gonna leave a mark.

Dope is smart.

Yes, if Liberals make it about illegals, well, they will "GARCIA!" this issue also.


For now I'd just nicely warn that the Republican Health Care system is going to mean longer waits, higher copays, and monthly payments going on.

(See people? no big bullshit language. People - UNDERSTAND copays, long waits.....and the moneyshot - monthly paymemts)

For starters, SOME voters will eventually blame the Republican Health System for even INNOCENT co-pays and waits.

And that's the appetizer.

Let the monthly premium sticker shock set in not just for thte voters BUT for the businesses enjoying customers who have a few more dollars to spend. Do you think $75-$900 per month makes a difference in spending habits? Hell yes- for people NOT on TMF and Bogle boards - it DOES.

Don't do the illegal aliens thing. Shut up about it. Democrats should for now just warn about the Republican Health System's copays and long wait times going UP --- and then - hone the message (Begala, Carville, and some more modern ones)....and use Medicaid in Red States AND higher ACA monthly payments in Swing States.

Ok, let me show you Liberals how to stay on message:

Hey, Trumo just nuked Detroit there's fallout all over the great lakes. Your answer: "The Republican Health System is gonna cause long waits, more co-pays"

Hey, your Mother talks in her sleep, and loves anal. Your answer: "The Republican Health System is gonna cause long waits, more co-pays"

And eventually....

There's Breaking News with live video of Trump shitting on the American flag and blowing the Saudi King. Your answer "The Republican Health Plan is raising people's monthly payments AND causing longer waits and more co-pays"

If anyone doesn;t follow this - fire his ass from Dem politics.

And Republicans who SUPPORT the changes - BRAG! Call it the Vance Health Scheme into 2028.

WAIT----FINAL CHANGE. NO SYSTEM. CALL IT "THE REPUBLICAN HEALTH SCHEME" ---- holy shit i'm good.

Dope1 And here's the GOP counter, courtesy of Scott Jennings (as he bodies Paul Begala on cnn today)

“We’re not cutting Medicaid for the people who voted for us. We’re cutting Medicaid for the people who vote for Democrats, the illegal aliens.

Jeebus, republicans are such morons.

First, undocumented immigrants do not vote in federal elections. Period.

Second, Scott Jennings is a sycophantic Trump toadie who, at least in this case, is a f*cking moron. Because, again, undocumented immigrants do not vote in federal elections. Here, try something new and learn something today: https://abcnews.go.com/US/election-fact-check-nonc...

Third, it's been well-documented that the 12 million individuals who are going to lose their healthcare coverage are low-income kids. It's adults who are working, but don't have health insurance through their jobs. It's people with disabilities. It's seniors who need help paying their Medicare premiums or who are in nursing homes. Medicare does not cover nursing home or long-term care, so it's really Medicaid that ends up picking up the slack there.

Some states have used their own money to provide healthcare to undocumented immigrants but that has nothing to do with this funding or these cuts.

As was pointed out earlier, one of every four nursing homes will be forced to close if this budget is passed. And that's not undocumented immigrant granny and grandpa, that's rural America granny and grandpa.

Don't believe PBS?

Here's Kaiser (wow, maybe you'll learn a record two things today): In rural communities, Medicaid covers nearly half of all births and one fifth of inpatient discharges. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Medicaid changes in the House-passed budget reconciliation bill—the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $793 billion, decrease Medicaid enrollment by 10.3 million people, and increase the number of uninsured people by 7.8 million.

In addition, in rural American local hospitals employee a significant percentage of the area's population. With these cuts, many rural hospitals will be forced to close and will take those jobs with them when they go.

Bwahahahahaha.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/who-would-be-aff...

https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/how-might-the-rec...

First, undocumented immigrants do not vote in federal e

They shouldn’t vote at all, but then it would be harder for democrats to win, amirite? And people who are already breaking the law never commit other crimes!

The rest of your post is…something else. You’re pulling some number out of your rear end and trying to run with it but smart money says you have no idea what’s in the actual bill.

It’s got work requirements in it…which were the brainchild of…

Bill Clinton!

All you need to do is
a) work 80 hours a month, or
b) be I school half time, or
c) volunteer 80 hours a month, or
d) do a combo of some of the above.

But do go tell hard working Americans they need to support illegal alien cannibals.

And you’re all in favor of yet another incentive for people to run the border illegally. Amazing. Not really.

As far as your nursing home thing the BBB reversed a policy put into place…in May or something of 2024.

First, undocumented immigrants do not vote in federal elections. Period.

Absolutely correct. That is a tired old trope that is completely fallacious (i.e. illegals voting). More Republicans try to vote multiple times (there have been several prosecutions when they are caught) than illegal aliens voting.

It is interesting -to me- that the Felon is cutting benefits within his own constituency. He got the poorer, less educated, demographics; which I'm pretty certain is the bulk of Medicaid recipients. And he's pulling the rug right out from under them.

Dems are idiots if they can't exploit that in 2026 and 2028, assuming those cuts survive reconciliation and reach the Felon's desk. Skip the pronouns, and go after this. And billionaire tax cuts. And if we end up with a bunch of dead grannies, "Republicans hate the old and infirmed!". The Reps are giving the Dems the next few elections, as long as the Dems don't blow it.

But do go tell hard working Americans they need to support illegal alien cannibals.

Cannibals, huh?

This is fascinating!

Do tell….

After President Biden *increasing* Affordable Care Act tax credits.....

The number of enrollees almost doubled.


Now under the Vance-Republican Health Insurance Scheme those enhanced credits will go away.

The funny part: 88% of the *new* ACA enrollees---came from states won by President Trump.

So Republicans wish to make Medicaid worse and harder *not* just for illegals but their own citizens.

And Republicans want to jack up monthly premiums on people who voted for THEM.


And in the meantime, we kicked Dearborn to the curb.

If Democrats don't mess this up, we best enjoy majority status. Who knows what progressives will do if they get power. Maybe add some SCOTUS seats, maybe help tilt our demographics a certain way, and truly make us into california.

Right now nobody cares.

When they new premiums come out - I'm not sure someone who can't afford insurance cares if Pablo is getting care or not.

We literally on the Democrat Payroll today. We are doing their work for them. all they gotta do is not say a word - and they'll win. If they run an effective message - they'll win bigger.

How do we get Michigan without Dearborn.

How do we get swing states, if our 2024 margins in said states are a FRACTION of the number of ACA users that will be livid over premiums.

The Vance Republican Health Scheme won't only hurt Americans (America First huh), it's going to hurt us politically.

If we "did the tough thing" and want to fall on our swords - fine - we've done that many times before. Who is the next Obama?

Cannibals, huh?

This is fascinating!

Do tell….

Maybe they decided to deport Abe finally: (from Noem today)

"The other day, I was talking to some of the marshals that had been partnering with ICE, and they said that they had detained a cannibal [illegal alien] and put him on a plane to take him home," she added. "And while they had him in his seat, he started to eat himself, and they had to get him off and get him medical attention."

https://x.com/nicksortor/status/194010742172623684...

Cannibals, huh? This is fascinating! Do tell….

This is what the mind lords over at Fox "News" are feeding the cult members today....

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alleged-cannibal-...

Facepalm.

Maybe they decided to deport Abe finally: (from Noem today)

Well if Noem hadn’t shot all the pet dogs, the guy would have eaten them instead.

And it’s called autocannibalism.

Which makes the guy pretty fucking sick. In other words, the perfect candidate for MAGA membership.

And this is what garners your attention, not the Big Budget Buster bill that will add trillions to our debt (remember, the thing you claim to have cred about), take money from the poor and give it to multi-billionaires (I call this Robbing Hood, the opposite of Robin Hood), throw millions off healthcare, close rural hospitals, and destroy our economy.

Trump bankrupted a casino, so the only goal left for him is to bankrupt a country.

Everything Trump touches dies. Even America.

And this is what garners your attention, not the Big Budget Buster bill

Count on it. Whenever Republicans are busy raping the Middle Class, FOXNews will ALWAYS provide the marks with a little oddball entertainment, eve as they are bent over to take it good and hard.


“Hey, Bubba! Did you see that illegal who started eating himself? Damn, them illegals ain’t even civilized! Good thing Trump’s getting rid of them! The ain’t just eating dogs and cats. They’z eating themselve’s too! Sick bastards!”

Let the libs whine about illegals being kicked off of Medicaid.

As the magats get kicked off Medicaid.... They must be ILLEGALS (otherwise, they would not lose it). DEPORT THEM ALL NOW !!!

tell hard working Americans they need to support illegal alien cannibals.

Have them set up meat shops in front of all the "Christian" churches. That way, they can get their meat while it is FRESH !!!

It is interesting -to me- that the Felon is cutting benefits within his own constituency.

His real constituency is the oligarch class. Period.

not the Big Budget Buster bill that will add trillions to our debt (remember, the thing you claim to have cred about), take money from the poor and give it to multi-billionaires (I call this Robbing Hood, the opposite of Robin Hood), throw millions off healthcare, close rural hospitals, and destroy our economy.

Lulz. Do you guys take Angry Pills with your coffee every morning?

The BBB makes the current tax rates permanent (in other words, no cut there) and puts in No Tax on Tips (and IIRC, overtime).

Why do you hate the working class?

The "millions thrown off of healthcare" will be people who can work but choose not to. And illegal aliens.

The "millions thrown off of healthcare" will be people who can work but choose not to.

That's certainly wrong. And possibly very wrong.

There are a lot of people who benefit from Medicaid who are not physically disabled, but lack the ability to regularly work. For example, if you head down to your local homeless shelter, you will find a non-trivial number of people who could not go out and get employed even if they wanted to. They lack suitable clothing, they lack suitable hygiene, they lack transportation, they lack a home address for paperwork, they lack any kind of job history. They may be presently addicted to substances that make them utterly unsuitable for work. They may have physical or mental issues that do not rise to the level of disability (or which they can't afford to have diagnosed by a medical professional as constituting a disability), but which make them unsuitable for work. Etc. Plenty of other people who suffer from the same lack of social or physical capital (especially in rural areas) who are simply not capable of getting to a job and performing it regularly.

There are also a lot of people that have familial situations that make them unable to go to work - they are caregivers for the elderly, other disabled household members, or for children that are not legally their dependents. The <65-year-old grandmother who is watching her daughter's children every day so the daughter can go to work (but can't afford child care) is not a "can work but choose not to" person, but they'll get booted off Medicaid just the same. And of course there are the many, many people who end up getting thrown off healthcare because they fail to properly navigate the bureaucratic labyrinth necessary to document all of this, especially those who have to string together odd jobs or self-employment.

There's no way that many of these people can start working. They would require a massive influx of resources to get them in a position where they could do that.

The reason that some rural GOP members are upset at the proposal is that they know a non-trivial number of their constituents fall into these categories - they're currently on Medicaid but aren't going to be able to meet the requirements. Which means that the rural hospitals and medical community that currently treat these folks are going to end up their finances blown to shreds when they get thrown off the program - not only do they lose the revenue, but many of these folks will still need to be treated anyway. And because so many of these people can't work - not choose not to but can't - there's nothing that the state can do to get them working.

That's certainly wrong. And possibly very wrong.

Not according to the CBO.

There are a lot of people who benefit from Medicaid who are not physically disabled, but lack the ability to regularly work. For example, if you head down to your local homeless shelter, you will find a non-trivial number of people who could not go out and get employed even if they wanted to. They lack suitable clothing, they lack suitable hygiene, they lack transportation, they lack a home address for paperwork, they lack any kind of job history. They may be presently addicted to substances that make them utterly unsuitable for work. They may have physical or mental issues that do not rise to the level of disability (or which they can't afford to have diagnosed by a medical professional as constituting a disability), but which make them unsuitable for work. Etc. Plenty of other people who suffer from the same lack of social or physical capital (especially in rural areas) who are simply not capable of getting to a job and performing it regularly.

Aaaaaand these aren't the people being targeted with the work requirements.
BTW you're also highlighting the abject Failure of what's colloquially known as the "Homeless Industrial Complex".

Living here in True Blue Seattle, I get a ringside seat to "Harm reduction" and all the factors that have been brought into play that perversely keeps these people in exactly the same state. Until they eventually OD, btw.

There are also a lot of people that have familial situations that make them unable to go to work - they are caregivers for the elderly, other disabled household members, or for children that are not legally their dependents.

And these numbers are very unlikely to be in the millions of people, despite what the democrats would say.

The reason that some rural GOP members are upset at the proposal is that they know a non-trivial number of their constituents fall into these categories - they're currently on Medicaid but aren't going to be able to meet the requirements. Which means that the rural hospitals and medical community that currently treat these folks are going to end up their finances blown to shreds when they get thrown off the program - not only do they lose the revenue, but many of these folks will still need to be treated anyway. And because so many of these people can't work - not choose not to but can't - there's nothing that the state can do to get them working.

You're ignoring why that is. The hint is that the drug problem in rural areas is just as bad as it is in the cities. Plus, the way to fix the problem in rural areas is not to increase the amount of public dole but rather to reconstitute many of the industries that have been outsourced to other places.

The way forward is actually pretty simple: We can't afford to stay on the trajectories we're on and things need to change.

Aaaaaand these aren't the people being targeted with the work requirements.

But those are people that will be hit with the work requirements.

I understand that the idea, or maybe the goal, is that only the deliberate shirkers will be thrown off Medicaid. But that's not what the law actually does.

That's the problem with these efforts. The population is an undifferentiable mix of people who are the sort that conservatives imagine they are targeting with these kinds of laws (the Willfully Indolent) and the people who cannot meet these work requirements. So when conservatives talk about the effect of the law, they imagine (and talk about) the people in the first group. When liberals talk about the effect of the law, they imagine (and talk about) the people in the second group. There are both Goofuses and Gallants that will be hurt by this measure.

Plus, there are lots of people who aren't receiving Medicaid that will be hurt by it as well - because Medicaid coverage of all these desperately poor people is what keeps a lot of hospitals and medical systems from collapsing in rural high-poverty areas. Those are often areas where education levels and access to jobs and transportation are lower than average....so imposing these types of requirements results in proportionally large numbers of hospitals and medical systems no longer being able to get revenues or reimbursements from treating these patients, and they fall apart.

You're ignoring why that is. The hint is that the drug problem in rural areas is just as bad as it is in the cities. Plus, the way to fix the problem in rural areas is not to increase the amount of public dole but rather to reconstitute many of the industries that have been outsourced to other places.

Regardless of whether that's either true or possible, that doesn't make your initial statement accurate. The people who are crippled by the horrors of the drug problem aren't people who "can work but choose not to." Nor are all the other people whose educational levels, physical or mental condition, or lack of transportation or housing or other material resources make it impossible for them to hold down a steady job....or to regularly complete the paperwork required to document their employment every six months.

But those are people that will be hit with the work requirements.

Somebody who's already effectively disabled and not doing anything anyway is already in the program. Besides which, addicts in shelters are the very definition of Between the Cracks in the system. At any rate...every effort should be spent to get them to a state where they can be productive members of society.

Rhode Island does this right. Other states should follow:
https://bhddh.ri.gov/substance-useaddiction/indivi...

Regardless of whether that's either true or possible, that doesn't make your initial statement accurate. The people who are crippled by the horrors of the drug problem aren't people who "can work but choose not to."

Sure. Except that this is an immovable goalpost and the fact is that there are addicts on Medicaid and people who could work...but choose not to.

And the folks who choose not to are using services that aren't meant for them.

Somebody who's already effectively disabled and not doing anything anyway is already in the program. Besides which, addicts in shelters are the very definition of Between the Cracks in the system. At any rate...every effort should be spent to get them to a state where they can be productive members of society.

Lots of people have physical problems that make them unsuitable for many jobs, but aren't enough to qualify them for legal disability.

As for the addicts, and others that you characterize as Between the Cracks, I wholeheartedly agree that every effort should be spent to get them to a state where they can be productive members of society. Which is why it's so counterproductive that Republicans are trying to stop that. These people need enormous resources in order to fix what's keeping them from being productive members of society - access to health care to fix their physical ailments, access to quality mental health care to address those needs, access to child care so they can work, access to housing so that they have a stable and secure place to keep clothes and food and other things that are pre-requisites to getting work, etc. Generally, fiscal conservatives don't want to provide these people with any of those resources on the government dime. That's certainly one position to take....but then, you can't expect that escape from being Between the Cracks if you're not helping them out. These people need enormous resources if they're going to turn their lives around.

And let's not lose sight of the other massive population we're talking about: people who meet the requirements but lose coverage because of the difficulty of satisfying the bureaucratic requirements of proving they meet the requirements. Which is typically the overwhelming majority of people who will lose coverage when these things get imposed (KFF estimated it was between 60-80% of coverage losses when they looked at in in 2018):

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/implicati...

Sure. Except that this is an immovable goalpost and the fact is that there are addicts on Medicaid and people who could work...but choose not to.

Right. There are people on Medicaid who don't deserve to be on Medicaid, and people on Medicaid who do deserve to be on Medicaid. Imposing a work requirement throws very large numbers of both populations off the program....and also can be very damaging to people who aren't on Medicaid at all, but live in areas where their health care infrastructure will be severely damaged if the Medicaid program is contracted.

You can't filter out the deserving and undeserving from each other, because the process of making that kind of individualized assessment is not only itself very expensive, but also ends up throwing tons of deserving people off the program.

Have them set up meat shops in front of all the "Christian" churches. That way, they can get their meat while it is FRESH !!!

4th of July Special
Choice- Body of Christ, on sale $6.66/lb
Great for the BBQ

Rhode Island does this right. Other states should follow:

Singapore is successful, look at it.

There are a lot of people who benefit from Medicaid who are not physically disabled, but lack the ability to regularly work. For example, if you head down to your local homeless shelter, you will find a non-trivial number of people who could not go out and get employed even if they wanted to. They lack suitable clothing, they lack suitable hygiene, they lack transportation, they lack a home address for paperwork, they lack any kind of job history. They may be presently addicted to substances that make them utterly unsuitable for work. They may have physical or mental issues that do not rise to the level of disability (or which they can't afford to have diagnosed by a medical professional as constituting a disability), but which make them unsuitable for work. Etc. Plenty of other people who suffer from the same lack of social or physical capital (especially in rural areas) who are simply not capable of getting to a job and performing it regularly.

For some of the MAGA their answer to these problems is 'let them die'. They see these people as failures who contribute nothing to society.

Others, like Dope, are just clueless or choose to be blissfully ignorant.

You can't filter out the deserving and undeserving from each other, because the process of making that kind of individualized assessment is not only itself very expensive, but also ends up throwing tons of deserving people off the program. - albaby

------------------

Turns out some fraud can be filtered and identified. I think it is good to perpetually be looking for them, and aggressively prosecuting fraud with lots of publicity. DOGE style of data mining opens up new opportunities for detection.

This example shows that some (most) of the criminals perpetrating medicare fraud are not necessarily medicare recipients themselves.

https://www.wisn.com/article/feds-charge-11-in-106...

The charges stem from a Department of Justice announcement of 324 people charged in connection to more than $14 billion in fraud.


Now, the United States DOJ says it has charged 11 people in the scheme. Court records show an overseas crime ring put foreign nationals in charge of companies in the United States as straw owners. The group then billed Medicare for urinary catheters and other medical supplies using "... the stolen identities of over one million Americans spanning all 50 states ..."

"A lot of this is truth and trust," said Mary Kogelmann, who received a summary notice showing Medicare paid for a catheter on her behalf. "As far as I'm concerned, there is no truth in a lot of this. It's nothing but fraud and lies."

Kogelmann never requested or received a catheter.

"I was shocked," said Chuck Wurster, who had a notice showing Medicare paid thousands on his behalf for catheters he didn't want or receive. "Absolutely shocked to see that with the vast amount of money that was being taken in by these people."

Court records show the crime ring mainly operated in Russia and Eastern Europe.

"Every fraudulent claim, every fake billing, every kickback scheme represents money taken directly from the pockets of American taxpayers," said Matthew Galeotti of the Department of Justice.

DOJ says Medicare stopped the payments to most, saying the federal agency paid $41 million, and supplemental insurance companies paid roughly $900 million in the scheme.

12 News Investigates has spoken to more than 80 people who had fraudulent claims. Court records show more than 400,000 people made the same complaints to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

These arrests are part of a larger announcement made by the DOJ Monday saying it arrested 324 people in connection with more than $14.6 billion in fraud.

bighairmike: These arrests are part of a larger announcement made by the DOJ Monday saying it arrested 324 people in connection with more than $14.6 billion in fraud.

Did the DOJ announce that Joe Biden did this, that Operation Gold Rush started in 2023 and was a Biden administration initiative?

Oh nevermind. I know the answer.

Did the DOJ announce that Joe Biden did this, that Operation Gold Rush started in 2023 and was a Biden administration initiative?

Oh nevermind. I know the answer

That was pointed out yesterday, but the Force is strong with this one.

>>bighairmike: These arrests are part of a larger announcement made by the DOJ Monday saying it arrested 324 people in connection with more than $14.6 billion in fraud.<<

Did the DOJ announce that Joe Biden did this, that Operation Gold Rush started in 2023 and was a Biden administration initiative?

Oh nevermind. I know the answer. - albaby

-----------------------

Good, I don't mind at all giving Biden credit for getting the ball rolling. A good thing was accomplished.

The point of my post was to show that Medicare fraud does not necessarily involve medicare recipients. It seems that the debate was settling into deciding the issue on the sole basis of the effectiveness of individual assessment, which I agree is difficult to do effectively on a large scale.

You can't filter out the deserving and undeserving from each other, because the process of making that kind of individualized assessment is not only itself very expensive, but also ends up throwing tons of deserving people off the program. - albaby

Did they arrest Rick Scott?

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.